For clarification, maybe I should add that the person - or at least the account, her email was sent from - seems authentic. (www.petitiononline.com/arthur1/petition.html - her name and email are being mentioned in the fine print). In order to avoid diminishing Jens' whatever dim chances of pardon he might have, I might just do as she suggested and keep a low profile, until having written and hopefully having received a reply by Jens. I must admit, I am in cold chills over that apparently humonguous wall of unreflectedness, which seems to surround his case and fate...

Like Sara, I can’t understand why the link to the petition form had to be removed. Were there submissions from the “wrong” people? What would “wrong” mean?

I do understand that opposing views aren’t particularly welcome: anything making Jens Soering less than holy is bad, if not for legal procedures to come (where blog entries should be irrelevant, and hopefully are), then for the morals of Jens’ supporters. Nevertheless, I found that you dealt with “Alan” in a candid way, and I can’t imagine that you’d suppress his views, or shut down the blog altogether.

What is truth? I find it very hard to determine who’s right. The dissenter reacting to your blog didn’t make the impression of trolling, and made some interesting points. On the other hand, the evidence in favor of Jens seems to be strong too.
The jury who established Jens’ guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” may have made a serious mistake, but what if they didn’t? I don’t know if you remember Matthias Rust, the German teen who flew a small aircraft to Moscow and landed it near the Red Square. He was hailed as a hero when he eventually was allowed to return to Germany. Few years later, he hit the headlines again after a knife attack on a nurse who had spurned him. Apparently, he wasn’t a hero, but only a disturbed boy.
This is just one example of public opinion frivolously embracing someone. (I can’t help but wondering how the Madeleine McGann case will turn out.)

If Jens is innocent (as he claims to be) his case should be reopened, and he should be acquitted. That would be great, both for Jens himself and for justice. Asking for clemency, however, would imply that he’s guilty, and though I think it would be a good thing if he wouldn’t have to die in jail, it would clearly be a less honorable way of leaving it –and unacceptable to him, if he’s an honorable man... So a new trial is the only real option.

Thanks Kees, for taking the time to read into some of this.

Well, I removed the link upon request of a party, who had expressed their concern over diminishing Jens' chances for pardon. The originator of this request indicated that the petition form on Governor Kaine's site had been misused to place complaints about my initiative. A link to the petition form was placed on Jens' site, in one or two of my posts here and on the clemency-site I set up with wordpress.com. The originator *seems* to be linked to Jens' network of supporters and friends, but I have not too many other options of crosschecking, but to simply ask that person - and she hasn't replied to my mails yet.

As for the truth: You're making a good point by introducing Matthias Rust as a parallel to this. And believe me, at times I felt great discomfort over the possibility of simply being very wrong about Jens Soering. However, from what knowledge I was able to gather on his case, it appears as if a blatant miscarriage of justice has occurred in his case. While I'm not a person trained in matters of the law, others, who are legal experts (e.g. Ms. Gail Marshal, who pushed for reopening the case and filed letters for appeal on Jens' behalf) come to the same conclusion: Miscarriage of justice. Before taking any actions, I went at some lengths in collecting whatever facts I was able to find, pieced them together and built my opinion that way - that is a legitimate process of forming an opinion, isn't it? And at some point I decided to go ahead with my initiative as there is no guarantee in life that one can be 100% right all the time. And even, if I had more or ALL the facts in, like the dissenters suggest, there'd still be a possibility, I'd read them wrongly. Still, I felt I had a right to have and express my opinion. Likewise, I can't deny others, i.e. dissenters, to do the same: Have and express their views. And so I welcomed Alan on my site and we exchanged our points back and fourth. I did the same with this individual, who registered as Cathy Miller, although she seems to deny me to have and express my opinion about this and repeatedly insulted me as well as Sara and Sherry and failed to make her point conclusively or reply to the points I made individually and carefully.

As for reopening the case to establish Jens' innocence: From what I have read on his site, he seems to have run out of whatever legal options he had. It appears, as if all legal bodies ever involved in his case see him guilty based upon the outcome of the trial and don't see - or "want" to see - any possibility of miscarriage. There is but one "joker" left and that is pardon being granted by the Governor of Virginia. This is, what his remaining supporters are going for and this is what I wanted to help with in setting up the blog and the call for supporters among my visitors and online friends. From what I understand, reopening the case is NOT possible any longer, as even the US Supreme Court has ruled against it. In other words: Like I said, all legal bodies involved see him guilty and don't see any possibility for miscarriage of justice. HOWEVER - there is what I believe to be strong evidence for this, i.e. his innocence and in turn, a miscarriage of justice.

For me personally, it isn't even that much about finding the truth. I see his verdict, I see his history of having been locked up for more time than he was given to live in freedom, I see a reformed and remorseful person, EVEN IF he had indeed committed those crimes, and I see his most modest wish of touching a tree once more before he dies and seeing a bit more of the sky than the rectangle that the Brunswick Correctional Center allows. And I would like to make a modest contribution in seeing to his wish fulfilled.

But - at least in the case of Cathy Miller it so appears, as if she didn't think I had a right to ask for mercy on the guy, because I don't have a sufficient amount of facts as she claims. She also seems to find her own feelings of bewilderness over the "hyper-commenting" Sara initiated more important than the overall purpose of all these actions. I disagree on both points and I will leave the blog up for now, until I have an authentic statement by Jens or a close friend of his advising me otherwise.

:D You may be a teenager, Sherry, but you managed to make the same points as I - at less than a third of the number of words I used LOL - let me in on this :D
Seriously: I have the same understanding from what I've read into the case, which is that reopening it would only be possible, if new evidence was found. And since prosecution had already allowed for important, exculpatory evidence to be destroyed prior to the trial (the check cashed at the Marriott Hotel, which would have proven his ABSENCE from the crime scene at the time the murders occurred), I am not too optimistic about anyone being able to find that new evidence. Other evidence - a hair found in the sink of the Haysom's mansion - hadn't even been tested for. Mind you: A hair is a DNA sample and could be positively linked to or away from Jens. Prosecution didn't feel they needed to test it (this Cathy-person even thinks, of all evidence, circumstantial evidence is THE gold standard, when there is a number of stories like this one, where miscarriage of justice could be identified and remedied based on DNA samples - thanks for finding and sending me the link)
And as you stated, he is at least guilty of having been an accessory to the crime, and he has admitted to that, expressed his remorse over that and has APOLOGIZED to the Haysom family for having failed to avoid the crime by getting Elizabeth professional help in the time before the crime was committed. Plus, he has served 21 years in jail in total, so yes, I also think that he deserves clemency being granted.
But what do I know? I may not be a teenager, but I'm still arrogant, don't have a UVA law school degree and most importantly, I haven't been a lifetime VA resident. Luckily so, I should add...

As to the sequence of events: This may come as a shock to you, Cathy, but I recall it the exact same way as Sherry has specified: Your first post on THIS blog (not to confuse with the Wordpress/clemency blog, where I don't remember you having posted anything, at least not using the same name) was your expression of disapproval over the hyper-commenting and asking, whether we were for real. Your second comment was the one Sherry quotes above. It was this:

and that a murderer (Jens Soering)should go free. A bit arogant on your part, no? Are we to assume that an opinion based on a television show and a few articles is more accurate than the opinions of 12 jurors who heard the evidence first hand over the course of days?

I recall it that exact way, as well and I have crosschecked based on the time stamps associated with the comments. And while I have replied to your first comment in a very neutral way, my second reply expressed some dissatisfaction over your wording and the underlying attitude that seems to have sparked your choice of words. I am really getting tired of THAT part of the discussion, and I will no longer bicker back and forth over "he said, she said, you said, I said". If anything was teenage or even infants' standards, it's this.

As to the Soering case and your offering of more evidence along with your interpretation of them: Again, I agree with Sherry in that you add some interesting points, which I haven't mentioned in my own take on things or entirely overlooked/not known. So, thanks for introducing these aspects. I also agree - and have previously and repeatedly admitted so - that despite my conviction of his innonence in committing the murders (while he is at least guilty of having lied at some point), there remains a feeling of unease over some of the dots that I find hard to connect. In particular Soering's confession to his former friend Matthias is giving me a lot of discomfort as well as your mention of stacks of "hitmen" magazins/literature. In addition to that, I find the hitlist he produced not helping an idea of his innocence, either.

But, let's face it: We could go on for years to come and pick certain evidence, present our opinion over a particular piece of evidence and then either agree or disagree. Even if we managed to do so without having to establish a common ground of demeanour over almost every post, we might eventually come to a position of partial agreement on his innocence or not. I believe I have come to that position of partially agreeing on some aspects with Alan, and I found this to be a gratifying experience. I am not all too sure, whether we'll be able to establish the same process. To be honest: I am very doubtful in that regard.

Regardless of all that, I believe this exchange has yielded at least two crucial insights: Personal feelings get in the way of an accurate, fair judgement. If anything, this somewhat lengthy thread has established this finding as a fact. It might be an inconvenient one for one or the other party, but it can't be looked away from when being serious about all of this or when being serious in general. To give you an example: Your initial motif seems (how I hate to speculate....) to have been to "protect" the Haysoms in some way, as you have stated our hyper-commenting to be disrespectful of their feelings of grief. This is a personal statement of your feelings, UNLESS you have talked to the Haysoms, presented them with this blog, asked them "Do you find this disrespectful?" and having received a personal "Yes" by them. In which case, it would render another above statement of yours of not being linked to neither the Haysoms, nor prosecution/judge, nor the suspects false.
Because if you are not linked to any of the suspects or victims as you have stated above, If you haven't talked to them and received this reply, your initial post is an expression of your own personal feelings and nothing but that. It is a valid expression, nonetheless and I have respected it by replying to you and explaining myself and my supporters.

Second and as a result of the first finding: If personal feelings coming from an attachment with a given party get in the way of a neutral judgement solely based on facts, there is no way of avoiding bias/prejudice. As I recall part of an article, the presiding judge in the Haysom/Soering trial was a personal friend of the Haysom family. In my country, such a judge would be OBLIGATED to reject presiding a criminal case - and a high profile one as this all the more. You have stated that you respect a given country's right to their laws. If I follow this position of yours, I will have to respect the fact that a person being personally and emotionally involved with the victims of a homicide CAN and HAS presided over judging the suspects' fate. You're in for another shock: This is something, I can NOT respect, I'm very sorry. Because following above reasoning: If personal feelings get in the way of judgement, there is no way of finding the ultimate truth of a given (criminal) case. While it could merit an entirely new thread, whether there is such thing as "ulitmate truth" in the first place, for pragmatic reasons let's just say that personal involvement on an emotional level is not helping to find it. Another example here (and you don't have to answer to me or us, just ponder for yourself): Have you EVER even allowed yourself a possibility of Soering being indeed innocent? Just be honest to yourself, I don't need an answer to this question.

And thirdly, and *almost* amusing in a way, is this: I am just now realizing that this entire thread could be considered an empirical experiment. Let's say, YOU had been part of the jury. Let's also say, you had been presented with the evidence, which was presented to the jury in the Soering case. Let's even go as far as saying, there would have been DNA samples, which would have safely ruled out Soering being present at the site and at the time of the crime. EVEN THEN, you are/were questioning that evidence to an end of rather suiting your personal belief of his guilt rather than his innocence - even if there was and HAS BEEN plenty of reasonable doubt. If there have been five more individuals working on the same principles of reasoning as you have demontrated here - do I really have to finish this sentence...? No, I don't. Instead, I would like to thank you for having most impressively demonstrated the very principles, which must have worked to the end of Soering's conviction/verdict at the time of the trial. Thank you - I couldn't have proven this any more conclusively than by all of the comments you left here.

With this being said: Yes, the guy absolutely deserves being deported to Germany and given *a little* bit more freedom than he currently has. And again thanks for introducing some aspects of the case, I wasn't entirely aware of.

@1: I have understood that from the previous post.
@2: OK.
@3: Not so fast. I never said, that NEITHER of them (Haysom/Soering) were at the crime scene. I just said that I find it entirely possible - if not likely - that Haysom and a third party were there, while Soering ran around town (Washington) to buy movie tickets (two each) for their alibis. Alibis for Haysom's parents, mind you, and in case word got back about her meeting with the drug dealer.
On a different note and to support my idea of a third party: A 10 hour window sounds sufficient enough to me for Elizabeth to have met with the drug dealer, her convincing him to go back to the Haysom mansion with her, e.g. by announcing sufficient amounts of money to cover the drug purchase and having committed the murders together with him (the drug dealer). After the crime, they had to get back in a hurry, so Elizabeth could meet with Soering in time (hence leaving the lights on, no time to dispose of possible evidence etc.). For the rest of this take, see Soering's confession at trial. I find his story totally plausible, it doesn't give me the faintest trace of doubt, never has.
4)
- Facial wound: When Soering confessed to British authorities, he was still following through on his plan to cover for Elizabeth. In doing so, he needed to come up with a plausible story, so authorities wouldn't reveal his cover-up right away. Remember, Soering said at one point during the trial that they spent several hours at the hotel thinking up plausible scenarios, because they were quite sure, police would show up during the next few hours. They not only needed to conceive of a coherent story, they would have also needed to make sure, both their versions were consistent when being interrogated separately later on. Apparently, noone ever questioned his reasons for the wound on his face, when in fact they could come from anything. For all I know, him and Elizabeth could have gotten into a quarrel over whose version of the events were the more convincing one - they were emotionally involved and under an insane pressure. Not at all unusual, they both got into a fight over this. Or: They could have even gone as far as him asking Elizabeth to punch him, so he could convincingly come up with this version of the story. I know petite women, who take on grown men, so that is not too far-fetched, either. For me, that wound on his face doesn't prove ANYthing in regard to the crime. Actually, it is no evidence at all as far as I'm concerned.
– Soering's refusal to provide blood/hair/print samples, wiping down appartment: Another one that I admit to have a little trouble with, yes. On the other hand: Who knows, what went on between Elizabeth and him. Elizabeth might have already let on she was going to break up with him. And from how prosecution and media coversage went, I'm almost sure Soering more than sensed the public had already made a verdict on him. I repeat: He may have been naive when it comes to Elizabeth (first love, mad love, all of that), but he wasn't STUPID. I'm pretty sure, he already KNEW in advance, what that evidence would have been used for and reserved him that little of being ahead of prosecution. The same goes for fleeing the country. This may have exactly marked the moment, when he noticed for the first time, he had bitten more than he could chew.
- Fortune magazines: I know, I said previously, they make me a bit queasy, too. But then: Soering was/is a bright kid. He could have INTENTIONALLY bought those, to give himself an image consistent with the crime. After all, he STILL wanted to cover for Elizabeth, being under the firm assumption, she'd be facing the electric chair and him only facing about 5 years in a European penitentary. I never had any doubt, he was ready to go as far as that, just so he could spare her the death penalty. In addition to that: Soering explained at the trial and in a very detailed manner, why he felt the way he does about the death penalty. Being German like him, I know EXACTLY what he was saying there. And yes, not being German could well mean - but doesn't necessarily HAVE to - anyone else can't really follow him there. I mean, you yourself said how people feel about murderers and death row and such in the States, while I have admitted feeling differently about this, while still SEEING YOUR feelings or that of other Americans. I can SEE your feelings there, but I don't SHARE them. As for Soering, I think it's safe to say, noone in the courtroom understood, what the hell he was talking about when expressing his feelings of disapproval - or even horror - of the death penalty in general and why it was so important to him, to spare Elizabeth that. In other words: He gave a most compelling account of his moral code in that particular area and all of what he is saying there is totally water-proof to me.
- Bragging to his friend Matthias: Speculative, agreed. But this could still play along with his efforts to surround himself with a "killer image". Maybe - I deem this totally possible given their complicated, strained relationship - that he might have even wanted to "impress" Elizabeth that way, as if he wanted to "prove" to her, he'd be capable of killing her parents for her - from a place of being insanely in love with her. It is all speculative, I know, but it's in the realm of human feelings and entirely possible. However, it requires a far more in-depth look into his and her psyche than prosecution ever cared to invest in them.

In order to believe Soering innocent, you would have to forget all of those things AND believe his story about Elizabeth going off for a ten hour mystery drug buy during their romantic getaway. You would have to believe that Soering spent those ten hours buying tickets to movies and a room service meal for no reason other than because Elizabeth asked him to. You would have to believe he had no idea what was going on.

I am not forgetting the questions you raise, but I have a differing take as to their interpretation. But then - we both know, I'm just arrogant, so I'm preparing myself for you dismissing all my above attempts at finding a different - but equally consistent - view on the evidence brought forward during the trial.

Does that make any sense to you? I can not imagine the circumstances under which that would make any sense but perhaps you can provide one that would get me thinking differently..

Yes, it all does, absolutely, and I'm not afraid to say so. All my alternative versions sound crazy, I'm well aware of that. They sound so far-fetched, no one in their right mind pays them any attention, agreed and I happily hand you that. HOWEVER - deep breath, now please - both of them, Elizabeth and by that time Soering as well, both of them were in a co-dependent situation that was way off any right-mindedness. I don't think it an exaggeration they both didn't exactly know, what they were doing any longer. According to Soering, Elizabeth stormed into the hotel-room, stammering "the drugs made me do it, the drugs made me do it". While I have never had any problems with substance abuse, I think such a situation is totally possible and plausible, especially in light of her extended drug abuse, her troubled relationship with her parents, her status in the community and at school/college, etc. etc. And then Soering got himself into all this mess by falling in love with her. Love is one of the most powerful feelings human beings are capable of and they will do things for love, no one in their right mind would even find possible - they might even go as far as to take responsibility for a crime they never committed.

I think I have been offering plenty of alternative views on the sequence of events and I will hang on to them, until they are safely ruled out by clear-cut, rock-solid countering evidence. Until that day - I will continue to believe in Soering's innocence. And I think, I'm just a hair away from reactivating that other blog, regardless of what everybody tells me. Arrogant, you say? Well, so be it then.

Hi Sherry, thanks for saying so. Unfortunately - please see my latest post - there won't be any reactivating. According to the forwarded email, I put my foot in it. Like I said, another bitter pill to swallow - I think, I have just about an entire pharmacy of those already.
Thanks for your support in this!

*giggle* ;-) And I thought, I was the only one, who didn't have a life *ROFL*